Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

3) I understand that many Christians believe the "commandments" of the OT are no longer obligatory. Even if you believe that, we still need to focus on the commandments as if they were obligatory. Agreed?

a) Do you therefore accept the obligations of the OT law to equally apply to all Israelites/people regardless of sex, race, age etc unless specifically excepted by the verse or in cases it would be absurd to apply (circumcision for females; or wearing tefillin on the arm for a man who has no arm etc.)

b) Do you agree (extending a) above) that if Scripture commands all Israel to do a specific thing, it would apply equally to each individual?

For instance, if every family is commanded to sacrifice a lamb/kid on Passover, then you could not have your family slaughter a cow and mine slaughter a rabbit etc. One family wouldn't axe the animal while another shoots it etc. Its not a free for all. Agreed?

I'm sorry that it does grant me an advantage, because I want to lose just as much as I want to win. Meaning: If I could more easily see the Talmud as viable scripture, it would be extremely helpful in my walk as a Christian.

So, I accept that debate. While I personally don't want there to be any restrictions as to what or how many scriptures (within reason) that we can use, I understand that we need to have more of a specific focus. Maybe we can work chronologically, as in from Moses to as far as we might want to go (maybe into as far as some of the first minor prophets) so that it can be demonstrated whether or not Oral Torah is reflecting Moses' messages (from God, of course).

I would favor the "oral law" debate over the shema since the shema will lead to more nebulous claims than the oral law debate. (oral law and rabbinical validity is more subject to a yes or no observation in logic than say for instance debating the trinity). Do you need to do what the rabbi told you to do? OR is 1 really one or fractions of one or is 1 really two or three called one? I think its obvious which question is easier to approach.

After we practice with that one we will understand each others style in a FD and be able to do a more advanced hair-splitting topic like the shema.

If that's OK with you we need to rephrase the debate's question in a more exact manner and define our positions. It also grants you the advantage since I will be trying to prove an affirmative (namely that the OT does imply an oral law and rabbinical power etc.)